At the beginning of the contention for the candidacy, I first read about Carson and found I liked him tremendously. Trump I was aware of, but didn't know much about him. As things developed, I came to admire Trump's straight-ahead manner and loyalty to supporters (the Lewandowsky upset). Eventually, it turned out that Carson and Trump became friends---which I took as a signal sign. Anybody who Carson would countenance must be a good person. So all the people who denounced Trump's character were visible to me as simple slanderers. The Carson friendship was the real deal.
I think this is bogus. 18 GHz is not a frequency used in any of the major 5G bands in service. And a cursory search turns up nothing about using microwaves to activate viruses---but plenty about using them to deactivate viruses.
Sounds like something to jazz up the conspiracy fright wigs.
No evidence. This is not even abnormal. Melted aluminum components were noted in the California "Camp Fire"" https://weather.com/en-GB/international/videos/video/camp-fires-flames-so-hot-aluminum-wheels-melted-into-liquid and the Tennessee wild fires https://www.autoweek.com/news/a1858946/tennessee-forest-fires-liquefy-aluminum-rims/ The cars are sitting in a patch of scorched earth, so there was obviously a fire footprint there. Combustion of the gasoline in the cars' fuel tanks---and the rubber in the tires---were sufficient to cause flames hotter than the melting point of aluminum and glass, When it is above its melting point, aluminum is a very mobile fluid, not like sluggish syrup. As long as there is a draft of fresh air, a fire beneath an automobile would be like a fire in a stovebox, where the radiant intensity would be amplified and the flame temperature would be close to the theoretical maximum. The engine compartment would be like a chimney, with the hot gases escaping through the hood joins and the radiator. (Think about it. The same features of an engine compartment to facilitate the flow of cooling air would work in reverse to facilitate the escape of fiery air.)
You have to get over the supposition that these events in Maui are a "first." They are found at other wildfires, and we don't need to invoke DEWs to explain their occurrence, either.
You were starting out from the premise that a burning tire would be insufficient to melt an aluminum wheel. Or that it could happen even without the tire flame temperature being higher than the aluminum melting point (I have a hard time recovering this thread). I pointed out that (1) burning gasoline and/or rubber had a theoretical flame temperature adequate to melt aluminum, and (2) there was no way the aluminum could receive enough heat to melt without the higher flame temperature. So, on the whole, I don't see that we have any disagreement by now.
Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient. But where is the evidence of any of that? The "local environment" is the flame of the burning gasoline and/or burning rubber. Made all the hotter when the combustion is occurring in a cavity where the thermal radiation is returned to the combustion. I provided the thermal conductivities. When the path is dimensionally narrow, such as an axle, the flow will be minor. When the ground has very low conductivity, the point of contact will be at the aluminum temperature, but the conductive gradient will be low and there will not be much thermal conduction to the ground in the time available to melt the aluminum. When the molten aluminum spread out thinly enough, it covered enough area for the surface conduction (and evaporation) to bring it below the melting point. I mean, I did this for a living. Your arm-waving is only that.
I've seen aluminum melt in a gas-fired forge about half the size of a suitcase. Pretty fast. No need for a kiln. All that is required is to be surrounded by the flame. It doesn't occur to you that the auto fuel tank probably lost its integrity by the initial fire, sprang a leak, lit off, and continued leaking gasoline onto the ground underneath the car, where it burns and ignites the tires. The tires surround the wheels. Burning rubber is no slight matter, as demonstrated by the "necklacing" committed by terrorists in South Africa. One tire, a bit of petrol, and a match, and the poor victim is rendered like a side of pork. Yes, the rubber can burn...and it can burn at a high enough temperature to melt the aluminum. You can hardly say that the wheel is somehow distant from the tire.
The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy." (By the way, if you consider the DeSitter categories of universes, the one with zero net energy is one that begins and then expands indefinitely. This conforms to the idea of a quantum event having zero energy but perpetual duration.)
Kantor addressed the distance-redshift relationship (among a great many other things). Arp addressed the validity of that relationship being interpreted as Doppler shift, and proposed a very startling reinterpretation of the redshift, quasars, and B Lac galaxies---backed up by statistical analysis.
Pursue your ideas as you will. All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction. Arp's insights were all driven by observational data. Kantor had a productive premise and worked it out by example to see if it was a covering theory. I mention them because they come easily to mind. There are others.
Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history. If a direction has promise, it will be looked at. Cold fusion has been deemed bogus by the U.S. scientific establishment, but it is a matter of sufficient curiosity in the rest of the world that there are companies in business to make and sell laboratory instrumentation and apparatus specific to that line of investigation. I will not be surprised to see something emerge---but I will be surprised if it emerges from the U.S.
I think you can't get past your own obsessions. I am an engineer and I look at physics and chemistry in terms of the reliability of the descriptions. When the laws appear to apply in all instances, that is why they are called "laws." When they don't, they are modified or supplanted. I'm pretty sure you know all this, but you just cave into the "we can never know" school of thought, which is useless. Would you bet your life on it? In my profession, we have to.
Even you don't "get" the evidence. It is not a matter of whether something is "conclusive" (of what?) or "compelling" (toward what?). It is a matter of "What is going on here?"
It seems like everyone who tells me to "open myself" operates with an idee fixe. I've had to think "outside the box" countless times, and reduce that to a design concept. Frankly, I think this admonition is a way to attain egalitarianism by the normalization of ignorance. All this "be open minded," and damn little "read a book and get wise." It doesn't take any effort to be open minded. It takes a lot of effort to learn and understand.
Or lower stairways?
I love his straight-from-the-shoulder candor. It is human psychology to turn to that like a plant turns to sunlight. The truth has a fascinating power even to the evildoers. I noticed this effect during Reagan's terms as President. It was why he was so engrossing to listen to. Trump is even more so.
As for "system of justice," maybe it can now be called a "cistern of justice"?
I said I did not think you were referring to antimatter, which exists. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with "negative energy." It has to do with the restriction of allowable wavelengths in the Casimir gap, creating an imbalance in the vacuum fluctuation of photons. As the gap gets smaller, the allowable wavelengths are increasingly excluded and the differential pressure is perceived / measured as an increasing force. In some ways, it is similar to the Van der Waals force, as an effect that results from close contact of matter.
I have no particular love for any of the popular cosmology models. There is good evidence against them all (see Halton Arp's work), including the suggestion that we actually have a steady-state universe. Fred Hoyle may be vindicated. Frederick Kantor also has an alternative explanation of the distance-redshift relationship, based on the loss of positional information of the long-distance propagating photon. (Kantor put his theory to the test by using it to predict the masses of all the known leptons. He was accurate to within small fractions of a percent.)
It follows that I have no credence in "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy." I had an interesting conversation with a practicing astronomer on the subject of cosmology, and we were of a like mind about the necessity of scientific honesty including the recognition of "We don't know." Too many people get wrapped up in hypotheses without any evidence to back them up. As a result of this cultish captivity, a true pioneer like Arp was summarily denied observation time because he was following an open-minded pursuit of truth that was not based on the "standard model."
You act astounded about the behavior of molten metal. I can melt (e.g.) lead in a crucible and pour it on a driveway or garage floor and it will slither along before it solidifies. The behavior of the aluminum is not abnormal. The video is mostly repetitive nonsense by people who are ignorant of combustion temperatures and melting points. There was fuel in the car: gasoline and rubber...maybe some of the upholstery. So, don't imagine there was nothing to burn.
I don't buy into massive conspiracies unless there is some tangible evidence. Just assuming it as an omnibus explanation for facts you don't want to accept is a delusion.
You may have no idea of the laws of physics (and I think you don't) but I have worked with them for 50 years and they are (guess what?) self-enforcing. Woe betide anyone who thinks they are false or arbitrary. Saying something is beyond your understanding says more about you than about the world.
We don't know whether the Navy videos are truly something or an aberration of the optical system. (The shape of the supposed object is very similar to the kind of cusped aberration resulting from an oblique focal image. This would be like seeing a speck in your camera viewfinder, thinking it was an insect, and being amazed that no matter how hard you tried to follow it, it was constantly leading you.) There are better results from radar contacts, which have been written up in (e.g.) the Journal of Optics, back in the 1970s. Everybody seems to think that this material is "new" and "ground-breaking," but it is part of a vast body of observation that goes back to the 1940s. Nothing new to me, which is why I have no expectation of any revelations.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have 3 degrees in science and technology, a field in which I have practiced for 50 years, resulting in 9 patents (certifiable new ideas) and technical developments (DEWs) that people here opine about. I don't think that throwing that all away will be a path to enlightenment. Having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind.
Heat conduction. I have a background in combustion chemistry, related to jet propulsion and energy production. All the fancy references aside, you don't seem to get the point of Fourier's equation: that there must be a temperature difference between the environment and the object in order for heat to flow into the object. Once they reach the same temperature, no more heat flow. So it is not possible to impose a heat flow independently of the temperature difference. Once the object reaches the same temperature as the environment, the flow stops. This imposes the requirement that the environment must have a temperature HIGHER than the melting point of the material in order for the material to melt.
Space warping and UFOs. I would welcome evidence, but the notion of "warping space" implies some reference background by which the warping might be measured. What would that be, except space? So, I regard the subject as being intellectually ill-posed. I keep in mind that "space" is not a thing; it is a dimension. And it is nothing but measurement. As for UFOs, there has been evidence since the 1940s, all without conclusion. I don't deny the evidence; I only point out that we don't have any conclusion that it supports. What the Navy has released (I have seen it) looks very similar to aberration phenomena that can occur inside optical systems, so when they try to keep up with something, it is on the level of chasing a speck on your glasses. Plenty of misidentifications in the 60-year modern history of the phenomenon. The more convincing evidence, in my book, are the ground residue of observed landings. (J. Allen Hynek was hired by the Air Force to examine and debunk UFO sightings. He coined the famous "swamp gas" explanation. But his repeated exposure to case after case wore down his skepticism, and he eventually emerged as not exactly a proponent, but someone who took their existence as a serious possibility. I was very impressed with this intellectual trajectory. As for myself, I had a lasting lesson from the hoax by George Adamski.)
Time as a continuum. Neither. It seems self-evident that time consists of the present moment. The past no longer exists. The future does not yet exist. I liken time to a region of combustion proceeding along a slow-match: the fire is the present, the past is the ash, and the future is the uncombusted match.
Self-reference. I'm not a fan of the "Big Bang." It is an artifact of the assumption that the distance redshift is a Doppler shift. Even Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the distance redshift, argued against that assumption, from reasons of astronomic compatibility with observation. The idea that there is no direction from which it proceeds is flim-flam, in my opinion. There is a quantum vacuum, sure enough, and it is demonstrated by the Casimir Force, which should give some pause to notions of special relativity. And the famous elevator thought experiment fails, once one is allowed to have multiple accelerometers within the elevator car. A gravity field can clearly be distinguished from a centripetal field, and from a linear acceleration without observation of the exterior universe. So, there is no "correspondence" between frame acceleration and gravity.
Thermal conductivity. The metric of conductivity is measured typically in terms of watts per (meter-kelvin). Here is an interesting summary of conductivities encountered in normal experience. https://material-properties.org/thermal-conductivity-of-materials/ Omitting the measurement units for the sake of simplicity, the conductivity of duralumin (an aluminum alloy) is 140. Steel is 50-54 or lower. rubber is 0.5, asphalt/concrete is 0.75, limestone & brick are 1.3, wood is from 0.13 to 0.17. So, while aluminum will tend to rapidly assume a uniform temperature. its ability to bleed off into the axle or onto the hard ground is very poor. And aluminum vapor combustion is ferociously hot. (Aluminum will evaporate below its boiling point, just as water will evaporate at room temperature.) The poor conductivity of the ground will require a high temperature for any heat input, and the temperature will penetrate only slightly into the ground. I have an iron stove insert and have spent decades being cautious about touching it. The fire is hotter, of course (literally orange-hot, based on the color of the coals). There is no need to lecture me on fire.
I think you have an insuperable obstacle in the absence of "negative matter." (I don't think you mean antimatter.)
Not so much knowledge as viewing the scene. When the fire has burnt up most of the forest, the end will come sooner rather than later.
Lasers/masers. Well, well. So it doesn't matter to you. Just to us laser engineers, I guess.
If you are meaning performing different functions, that is definitely not "coupling." But what different functions are you ascribing to them? Are you using a laser (which can be blocked by clouds) to do aiming for a microwave (which is not blocked by clouds)? If you are able to target with a microwave, why would you need a different aiming system? Just curious.
No, there was sufficient heat to melt the aluminum. You have a poor understanding of thermodynamics. Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature, When the temperatures are the same, there will be no further heat transfer. This is called conduction. I suggest you brush up on thermodynamics.
Supposition vs. Imagination. All this is within my field of experience. Based on your deficient understanding of thermodynamics, I don't think it is within yours.
Name-calling. Pointing out ignorance is no more "name-calling" than pointing out a shortness of height.
For example. Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary. One can say "if" to anything. "If" there are Menehunes, they took revenge on white-faces. That is only an example of an imagined thing.
Now, I am interested in your conclusions about the requirements for the warp drive. It shows that the mountain is really, really steep. I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum, however. And I don't understand how it is possible to "warp" space, when that would be a completely self-referential concept. As a result, you may legitimately conclude that I am less than fully convinced of general relativity. (It is easy to prove the falsity of the Correspondence Principle, for example.)
Oh, rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
The optical problems for laser power projection are inherent in the physics, not the technology. Assume ideal technology---you still get the problems.
The problem here is that I have encountered---and answered---many of these questions early in my career. I am still open to new ideas (e.g., information mechanics by Frederick Kantor, and a different explanation for intergalactic redshift by Halton Arp). Under the circumstances, experience counts.
What's to say there weren't fire dragons from hell? I think the public announcement of his appointment on the 21st is conclusive.
All I see is someone who libels and then refuses to admit and recant. You "just have little patience for toxic discourse" but find no problem with accusing Nikki Haley as being a liar, without any evidence and contrary to the facts. And so, your pride in being a "normal healthy human being" is more important than respect for the truth and another person's reputation. If you are "averse to others being total dicks" that would be consistent with not being averse to yourself being a total dick.
Me? I'm not even angry. You aren't worth that much upset.
It only shows that the U.S. government has a Dun & Bradstreet number. This website has clearly squeezed a description of the U.S. government into a business model template, for the sake of populating a template.
There is no issue over the fact that Washington DC is incorporated (i.e., created as a legal entity for debts and services owing or due). The point is that it is not a private corporation.
It would help if you could be succinct.
Check any book on thermodynamics. An object cannot become hotter than its environment if the heat is arriving by physical contact (conduction or convection). It is also true radiatively. Otherwise, we would have a violation of the 2nd Law.
The adiabatic flame temperature of wood combustion is 3,596 F. Coal/coke has an adiabatic flame temperature greater than 3,900 F. We use an insulated environment to reach that flame temperature. Nobody here is talking about instantaneous melting---though it is a great piece of nonsense to imply that I am saying so. I performed the calculations for melting such things as aluminum or titanium by a laser beam, close to 40 years ago. I haven't forgotten what you never knew.
When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires? Since the introduction of lithium batteries and being in the midst of a forest fire. If you have an interesting point of statistics, write an article and get it published somewhere. I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.
I have pointed out that tire fires have the temperature necessary to melt aluminum. I have also pointed out that evaporating aluminum can catch fire at a comparable temperature. You simply shrug this off.
Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics. I have worked in these programs. They are "interesting," but they do not involve any violations of known physics. The Navy videos are also "interesting" but have features suggestive of optical effects in the camera. In any case, they prove nothing. You can't build any case of "if they have technology X..." Well, do they? No answer. And, by the way, you have no idea what questions I have asked or considered. The fact is that I know more shit about this than you can pretend to know.
Use of DEWs? You don't spend billions of dollars for the sake of something that can be accomplished by thugs and cigarette lighters. It would be a waste of billions of dollars.
No, you don't have evidence. You have some facts that you want to interpret as "evidence," when they are much more easily explained in a mundane manner. You don't bother to consider the other hypotheses: large fire arrows delivered by arbalest, fire bombs delivered by drifting balloons, fire-breathing dragons (how do you know they don't exist?), thermite grenades tossed from a helicopter. For being an apostle of open-mindedness, you are stuck on one track.
It's not that I "didn't get the memo." It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology, and the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor. I can't help it if you embrace the sloppy thinking of an ignorant public.
Your laser (maser?) concept is vague, to be generous. Why you would need "dual frequencies" (we normally discuss this application in terms of wavelengths) is not explained. Microwave and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean). The fact of the matter is that past designs of power satellites require apertures hundreds of meters in diameter to project its beam to Earth---to be received by an aperture of similar size, for an intensity 1/4 that of sunlight. Do you want to burn down huge patches of forest, or just light a fire somewhere? You need to increase the size of the transmitting aperture. It's easy to figure out---if you know how. But I can assure you nothing of that scale has been built, or would ever be concealable from those other nations who jealously guard their slots in the geostationary orbit belt. You are basically engaging in a magical idea: just wave magic wand, no physical calculations required.
You don't have evidence if DEWs if the "evidence" does not display unique features that would be possible only with such weapons. Interestingly, DEWs would not leave behind any traces. You are therefore in the business of taking the evidence you have and construing it as being explicable in only one way---when in fact it is far from inexplicable. Melting aluminum is not very remarkable. I recall photographs of aircraft crash scenes where fire resulted and there was melted aluminum residue. At least my "suppositions" are based on known properties of materials and observed phenomena. Your "supposition" is based only on imagination. Since it assumes things not in evidence nor in prospect, it is pretty much not possible.
You come up with mythology and call it "possible"---then you get all huffy about the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."
And then the obligatory name-calling. You don't seem to realize that name-calling is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on an empty argument.
Gee, blue objects surrounded by charred rubble. Including photographs of red objects that are surrounded by charred rubble. Said charred rubble consisting of all kinds of colored objects---including blue objects. There is photographic proof of formerly intact blue objects having been burned, and objects of other colors not being burned. You have only proof of "some blue objects were not burned." No proof that blueness was a magic protection against being burned.
What you are practicing is selective evidence in support of bias confirmation. If you want to compare facts and knowledge, please do so, but don't think that "DEWs set this fire" is any kind of proven fact. For you, it is an article of faith.
Cities are incorporated all the time. They are not private entities. "Incorporation" means only that they are constituted as a legal entity according to charters or similar documents. Legal, as in being liable for cause or debt. Cities are public entities according to state or federal law as applicable.
The satellite they destroyed was with a kinetic energy weapon, not a laser. They have separately been testing lasers as a weapon against satellite sensors (too much intensity in the optics will burn out the focal plane array).
Research first. Go nuts afterward.
The Lahaina fires started August 8th. Joe Biden announced the appointment of Robert Fenn on August 21st. Here's the sauce: https://www.rttnews.com/3385454/bob-fenton-named-chief-federal-response-coordinator-for-maui.aspx
How can he confirm time travel? It's just Biden, as usual, scrambling his lines.
It didn't and it doesn't. That's what smacks you in the eyes when you read it. No such creation. The allegation is based on lots and lots of "but what this really means" style of argument, contrary to what the act itself says...which is nothing to do with establishing a corporation in the commercial sense. It "incorporates" the city of Washington as occupying the District of Columbia. Just as any other city is "incorporated" into an entity with a legal existence. No other meaning.
The power of a stock phrase: it is practically a reflex. I did get a wry smile as it passed by.
Like the guy talking to an amputee, saying "But, on the other hand..."